Does a defendant who merely parrots the language of the concealment money laundering statute satisfy a district court's obligation under Rule 11 to establish a factual basis for the plea?

QUESTION PRESENTED After the Court’s decision in Cuellar v. United States, does a defendant who merely parrots the language of the concealment money laundering statute satisfy a district court’s obligation under Rule 11 to establish “a factual basis for the plea” sufficient to meet the constitutional requirement that a plea must be knowing and voluntary?